Media Updates, page-13147

Dispute over the distinctiveness of marks “a2”, “ATWO”, and “a2 MILK”Case Summary: Marks “a2”, “ATWO”, and “a2 MILK”, designated for use on milk-related goods, should be considered suggestive trademarks. Based on their inherent distinctiveness, registrations shall be approved.The a2 Milk Company Limited, based in New Zealand, has registered marks “”, “”, and “”. The marks are designated for use on milk-related goods, implying that the goods only contain A2β-casein and not A1β-casein, as the former is less likely to cause digestive discomfort.The well-known Taiwan dairy brand Better Together (鮮乳坊), owned by Pure Milk Co., Ltd. (慕渴公司), as well as the international manufacturer Nestlé have also launched milk-related goods that contain A2β-casein. These companies argue that “a2” and the other related marks are descriptive of the nature of the milk-related goods, rendering them non-distinctive. After reviewing the case, the TIPO voided the registrations of said marks. a2 Milk Company filed an administrative appeal, which was dismissed; subsequently the company filed an administrative litigation against the TIPO.In its judgment, the IP Court found that “a2” and “ATWO” are not existing foreign words, they do not contain inherent meanings, and their definitions are not readily available in the dictionary. When the consumers encounter said marks, they might not immediately associate them with “milk containing A2β casein” or other descriptive connotations, as claimed by the opponents. Furthermore, the words “a2” and “A2β casein” are not entirely identical. Consumers will have to do their own research and use a certain degree of imagination or reasoning before they can understand the association between the two. Therefore, a2 Milk Company is indirectly hinting at the composition of the goods by means of implicit metaphor. As suggestive trademarks, they are inherently distinctive. There is no ground for refusal of the registrations under Article 29, paragraph 1 of the Trademark Act. a2 Milk Company’s claim is justified, and the original disposition is voided.